Cultivating critical practices in physical geography

Abstract

Fundamental changes in the meaning and practice of environmental science are affecting – and are affected by – the theoretical, technological, pedagogical and institutional projects of physical geography. These changes have given rise to a range of ‘integrative’ (or integration‐directed) disciplinary narratives which articulate a role for physical geographers within an engaged project of societal relevance and transformation. In this context, we welcome the rise of a notional ‘Critical Physical Geography’ and here we seek to expand the conversation to support thinking about what it might mean to be critical within physical geography. Moving beyond definitions of interdisciplinary collaboration, we propose that being critical from within physical geography begins with cultivating a critical disposition towards the situated partiality of our scientific practices. This prompts consideration of the ways in which our environmental objects could be assembled differently, reflecting different personal histories and values, and from different epistemic locations and management framings and through different investment narratives. A critical disposition prompts reflection upon the situated constraints and opportunities presented by our institutional locations. Recognition and articulation of critical perspectives may provoke endeavours to more consciously reassemble our scientific and institutional projects into more effective interventions to secure a more powerful and meaningful role for physical geographers across their diverse engagements.

A critical physical geography of urban soil contamination

“…Echoing interventions in physical geography calling for the integration of insights from human geography (Tadaki et al, 2012;Wilcock et al, 2013), recent CPG contributions (cf Carey, 2010;Doyle et al, 2013;Lave and Lutz, 2014;Simon, 2014;Tadaki et al, 2014) respond to perennial calls in geography and other disciplines for an integrated science that takes seriously the interrelations between the social and the biophysical. Furthermore, CPG has the potential to move beyond the conventional ''impact model'' of human drivers of urban biogeochemical change (cf Grimm et al, 2008;Kaye et al, 2006;Pickett et al, 2011) by explicitly addressing the distal social processes mediating proximal soil disturbance, recognizing that ''socio-biophysical landscapes are as much the product of unequal power relations, histories of colonialism, and racial and gender disparities as they are of hydrology, ecology, and climate change'' (Lave et al, 2014, p. 3).…”

Towards a sociogeomorphology of rivers

“…I do not mean to criticise or deny the validity and value of these views and restoration activities, or to suggest that they should not happen, but rather to point out, as Bouleau (2013) argues, that whatever is the view of the river from geomorphic intervenors and their associated scientific knowledge, it has material consequences for the river morphology. The role, function and motivation of geomorphologists in this socio-natural system, and the consequences for the system itself, have gone largely unexamined (but see Lave, 2009and Tadaki et al, 2014a, along with reflection on the consequences of these actions (Lane, 2014). As has been argued by some biologists in the case of approaches to "invasive" species (e.g.…”

“…Chew, 2009), scientists may not be neutral participants and observers. There are important implications here for the way that geomorphologists see their role and knowledge, interact with others, and approach alternative "ways of knowing" the landscape and this is something that needs greater attention in geomorphic research (see Tadaki et al, 2014a) It should also be understood that, in the physical conception of the river, there are alternative visions, based in river dynamics, but building on principles that are not solely geomorphic. especially from the direction of explicit landscape design, may therefore be an important component in explaining river form in intentionally designed and restored rivers.…”

“…Here I introduce elements of this "more social" approach in the case of river morphology and ways in which explanations of river morphology can be expanded through a more critical view Tadaki et al, 2014a) of rivers as co-productions of socio-geomorphic processes (Bouleau, 2013). I do so by first presenting a case of urban river morphology illustrating ways in which "physical only", anthropo-geomorphic analysis limits understanding of morphological changes.…”

Boxing daze – using state-and-transition models to explore the evolution of socio-biophysical landscapes

“…Duvall, 2011;Inkpen, 2011;Inkpen and Wilson, 2013;Inkpen et al, 2007;Lane et al, 2011;Lave, 2009Lave, , 2012Robbins, 2000Robbins, , 2001Turner and Robbins, 2008;Whatmore, 2002), there is still no consensus on how to bring these supposedly opposing sides together. Because of the collaborative hurdles researchers interested transdisciplinary work must overcome, if CPG is to prove successful, practitioners must develop shared -or compatible -research frameworks and methodologies that dissolve boundaries between human and physical geography (Lave et al, 2014;Tadaki et al, 2014). This paper highlights one framework that can weave together the epistemological strands that run through physical and critical human geography research.…”